（原标题：券商分公司老总代客炒股 巨亏超270万！退休后 仍被罚） 【导读】监管严查证券从业人员违规代客理财 敖义的违规操作分为两个阶段：第一阶段为2019年12月至2020年7月，他私下接受余某蛟委托，登录其 指定的普通账户进行证券交易，这段时间内，该账户交易金额约5970.41万元，最终盈利约1.56万元。 第二个阶段为2020年3月至2024年5月，敖义继续接受余某蛟委托，操作其信用账户，交易金额远超普通 账户，交易金额约2.69亿元，但账户亏损金额高达273.22万元。 综合两个账户的交易情况计算，敖义在违规期间累计操作交易金额约3.29亿元，总计亏损约271.66万 元。敖义接受委托期间未产生违法所得。 根据当事人违法行为的事实、性质、情节与社会危害程度，依据《证券法》第二百一十条的规定，海南 证监局最终决定，对敖义给予警告，并处以15万元罚款。 退休后仍躲不过监管追责！ 9月5日，海南证监局披露，财达证券海南分公司前老总敖义私下代客操作证券账户，累计交易金额约 3.29亿元，总计亏损金额约271.66万元。虽未产生违法所得，但构成违法事实，敖义被予以警告并罚款 15万元。 值得注意的是，敖义于20 ...

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory body has imposed penalties on a former executive of Caida Securities for unauthorized client account operations, highlighting ongoing issues of compliance within the securities industry [1][3]. Group 1: Case Details - The former head of Caida Securities' Hainan branch, Ao Yi, engaged in unauthorized trading activities, with a total transaction amount of approximately 3.29 billion yuan and a total loss of about 2.72 million yuan [1][3]. - Ao Yi's violations occurred in two phases: the first from December 2019 to July 2020, involving a regular account with a transaction amount of about 59.70 million yuan and a profit of approximately 15,600 yuan; the second phase from March 2020 to May 2024, involving a credit account with a transaction amount of about 2.69 billion yuan and a loss of approximately 2.73 million yuan [3]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The Hainan Securities Regulatory Bureau issued a warning and a fine of 150,000 yuan to Ao Yi based on the nature and severity of his violations, as per Article 210 of the Securities Law [3]. - The regulatory environment is tightening, with multiple securities firms facing penalties for similar unauthorized trading practices by their employees, indicating a broader crackdown on such activities [4][6]. Group 3: Industry Context - The issue of unauthorized client trading is prevalent in the securities industry, with regulatory bodies actively working to purify the market environment [4]. - Industry insiders suggest that the persistence of these violations may stem from a lack of compliance awareness among frontline employees, who may engage in such practices to maintain client relationships or enhance their income [6].